easy · LSAT Logical Reasoning
The company should not move its headquarters. Moving would be expensive, and we have already invested millions in our current building. Besides, if we move once, we will eventually feel forced to move every five years as the market changes.
The argument proceeds by
- combining concrete cost-based objections with a prediction that one move would spiral into repeated relocations.
- contending that one defective component of a plan renders the entire plan defective.
- citing a specific past case to show that relocating always turns out badly.
- deferring to an authority's assessment of the real estate market.
- demonstrating that relocating would, beyond any doubt, bankrupt the company.
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT Logical Reasoning practice
- Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the statements above?
- The question type just described is best identified as which one of the following?
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
- Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship the statement establ
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?
- Which one of the following must be true given the statement above?